18 flats at 57 Queensway, Bognor Regis

What was proposed

The application proposed demolishing existing garages and a canopy, remediating contaminated land and building 18 one-bedroom flats over three storeys.

“DESCRIPTION OF APPLICATIONThe application proposes to demolish structures and construct a three-storey building consisting of 18 one bed flats with 4 parking spaces to the rear and a cycle and bin store. TOPOGRAPHYPredominantly flat. TREESNone on site. BOUNDARY TREATMENTPost and rail fence to the east and south of around 0.5m in height. There are screens to the east and west as part of the car wash.”

Officer report

Earlier site use

The site was formerly a garage and petrol station, with five presumed underground petrol tanks decommissioned and filled with concrete in 1999.

“The site was a former garage/petrol station and there are 5 presumed underground petrol storage tanks that were decommissioned and infilled with concrete in 1999. To this date, it is presumed these are in situ and will need to be removed to ensure no potential contamination.”

“A remediation and strategy plan has been provided to demonstrate how the tanks should be removed and how potential contamination in the soils and groundwater will be dealt with prior and following the BR/67/25/PL”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the proposal had not demonstrated policy-compliant surface-water drainage and would not increase flood risk elsewhere.

“SUMMARY The development falls within the BUAB where the principle of development is acceptable subject to compliance with relevant policies. The proposal is compliant with policy in matters surrounding design and character, residential amenity, transport and parking and biodiversity.”

“Paragraphs 181 and 182, state that flood risk should not be increased elsewhere as a result of development. The impact from flooding may affect not only (newly introduced) occupants at ground floor level but areas further afield, such that the increased risk of flooding is given substantial weight.”

Officer report

What people said

No representations were received from nearby occupiers, and the town council requested viability review and improved alleyway lighting.

“No representations received from nearby occupiers. COMMENTS ON REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED: Comments noted and addressed in the conclusions. CONSULTATIONS CONSULTATION RESPONSES RECEIVED: Economic Development - No objection. BR/67/25/PL”

Officer report

Who spoke

The agent was the public speaker, and a councillor addressed the committee after declaring a personal interest.

The committee’s debate

Members supported refusal because drainage concerns, sewer capacity and possible flooding had not been resolved and required a comprehensive solution.

“The officer advised that, while the site was within the built-up area boundary, the proposal had not demonstrated a suitable drainage scheme. The drainage engineers had raised concerns that the proposal did not comply with SuDS standards, and calculations required updating, which could affect storage volumes and layout design. High groundwater levels could also necessitate design changes. These issues could not be addressed by condition.”

“Councillor Bence was invited to speak first where he declared an personal interest as a member of the WSCC Beach Forum, noting his extensive understanding of issues relating to foul sewage and surface water drainage. He expressed strong support for the recommendation to refuse the application, stating that any additional development would put the sewer system under strain.”

Minutes

The vote

The committee proceeded to a vote and resolved to refuse the application.

“As no other members spoke, the Chairman proceeded to the vote.”

Minutes

The final decision

The application was refused because drainage and flood risk remained unresolved, required infrastructure and open-space contributions were unsecured, and Pagham Harbour mitigation was absent.

“Additional contributions would also be secured towards built leisure, health and fitness, and playing pitches. CIL DETAILS The application is not CIL liable as it is for flats in a town centre location. RECOMMENDATION REFUSE 1The proposal has not satisfactorily demonstrated that the development can sustainably drain surface water. As such, it has not been proven that the development can be adequately drained and would not increase flood risk elsewhere.”

“NPPF. 3In the absence of a signed Section 106 agreement, the development fails to make the required contributions for off-site provision of play, public open space, off-site playing pitches, off-site built sports or other off-site leisure facilities and is thereby contrary to the aims and objectives of policy OSR DM1 of the Arun Local Plan, the NPPF and the Council's supplementary planning document "Open Space, Playing Pitches, Indoor and Built Sports Facilities" (January…”

Officer report